Appendix Table E4Reporting of characteristics in systematic reviews of implantable medical devices according to journal type

Reporting ItemPublished in general medical journals
N=34
Systematic reviews
n (%)
Published in specialty medical journals
N=147
P-valueTotal
N=181
n (%)
Search
Search terms were described or referred to elsewhere30 (88)135 (92)0.51165 (91)
Multiple databases were searched30 (88)114 (78)0.36143 (79)
Years searched were described30 (88)132 (90)0.51162 (90)
Multiple languages were included in search15 (44)47 (32)0.2362 (34)
Authors explicitly stated searching for unpublished data24 (71)56 (38)0.00180 (44)
Selection
Inclusion or exclusion criteria were stated34 (100)141 (96)1.0175 (96)
Population at baseline was reported34 (100)147 (100)1.0181 (100)
Interventions/exposures were described34 (100)147 (100)1.0181 (100)
Comparators were described34 (100)144 (98.0)1.0178 (98)
Outcomes were described34 (100)144 (98)1.0178 (98)
Types of studies included were reported34 (100)147 (100)1.0181 (100)
Number of studies included and excluded were reported22 (64.7194 (64.0)0.65116 (63)
Reasons for exclusion were described27 (79)112 (76)0.82139 (76.8)
Results
A flow diagram for the number of studies included and excluded was used18 (52.9)62 (42.2)0.3480 (44.2)
The number of primary studies included8523436NA4288
Results were presented graphically24 (70.6)93 (63.3)0.55117 (64.6)
Meta-analyses were performed27 (79.4)97 (66.0)0.15124 (68.5)
Costs or cost-effectiveness were described16 (47)26 (18)0.00142 (23)
Device-specific Variables
Data on differences across device characteristics were discussed18 (53)68 (46)0.5786 (48)
Data on differences within device characteristics were discussed11 (32)54 (37)0.7865 (36)
Evolution of devices over time were discussed9 (27)29 (20)0.4838 (21)
Operator-specific Variables
Details of training/certification of provider were reported1 (3)1 (1)0.342 (1)
Ramp-up in provider technique (i.e. learning curve) was discussed2 (6)11 (8)1.013 (7)
Level of expertise of team/site were considered1 (3)15 (10)0.3116 (9)
Practitioner variability were discussed1 (3)17 (12)0.2018 (10)
“Volume at sites” effect were discussed2 (6)12 (8)1.014 (8)
Handling of heterogeneity
Models for meta-analyses were reported27 (79.4)97 (66.0)0.15123 (69)
Meta-analyses used accepted methodologies (e.g. studies grouped by design)27 (79)87 (60)0.05114 (63)
Heterogeneity was assessed or discussed?30 (88)109 (74)0.002139 (76)
Sensitivity analyses were assessed or discussed20 (59)45 (31)0.00365 (36)
Results by subgroups were considered or quantified22 (65)70 (48)0.0892 (51)
Validity
Risk of bias was assessed21 (62)58 (40)0.0279 (43)
Publication bias was assessed17 (50)42 (29)0.0359 (33)
Quality items or checklists were applied and reported21 (62)51 (35)0.00672 (40)
Discussion
Study limitations were described33 (97)142 (96)1.0175 (96)
Overall strength of the body of evidence was assessed
Specific future research recommendations were made26 (76.5)122 (83.0)0.46148 (81.8)
Funding source was identified24 (71)52 (35)0.076 (42)
Authors' affiliation to industry was reported.8 (24)30 (21)0.8138 (21)

From: Appendix E, Tables 1–4 Subgroup Analyses

Cover of Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices
Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet].
Raman G, Gaylor JM, Rao M, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.